The jews who run this so-called “historical” web site refuse to post any portion of, and have removed all traces of, the following rebuttal of Wikipedia's slander of the Official World Wide Web Site for the Christian Party, and their false and slanderous and unproven assertion that our polls are biased in a way that American mainstream opinion is not accurately reflected


CHRISTIANS BEWARE: there’s nothing at all objective about a web site which accepts carte blanche the views presented by the radical extremist small 1% minority population who identify themselves with the Talmud rather than the US Constitution, to the detriment of the 93% who profess to be Christians.


<<<Christian Party (United States)

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The Christian Party is a minor political party in the United States. It is connected to the Christian Identity movement. The party's ideology is dominated by racism (it is especially hostile towards African-Americans and Hispanics), antisemitism and anti-feminism. Their website includes polls on issues such as "exiling Blacks" these polls claim to result in over 90 percent of people supporting the exile of blacks. However, this is clearly a biased result.

The party's ideology resembles that of another party with the same name, the Christian Party (1930s), founded by William Dudley Pelley.>>>



It’s well established by polls, surveys, studies, and elections that the most pernicious and unpopular form of racism is the institutionalized, systemic type called affirmative action.  Not only do we have a strong decade long record in opposition to affirmative action, not only did we speak out in opposition to affirmative action at a time when even discussing this sacred cow caused people to spin around on their heels and walk away, but it was the first one hundred Signatories to the Fathers’ Manifesto who laid the groundwork for Proposition 209 by which almost two thirds of California's White voters, and a majority of other races, amended the California Constitution to BAN this form of racism.  Our adversaries at the time, who were many and vociferous, used the same slurs as Wikipedia now uses: "racism", "anti-semitism", and of course "anti-feminism" [which we, including 98% of our women Signatories, proudly are].  These false charges nonetheless caused more than two members to be fired from their jobs, who persisted in their campaign to rid the land of this pernicious racism.

Without our opposition to this form of racism, we are confident that Proposition 209 would not now be the law of the land.  Without our groundbreaking poll in which it was discovered that White women were more likely than White men to oppose affirmative action (61% vs. 59% opposed), none of the succeeding polls would have ever been conducted.   Yes, the poll did have a slight liberal bias, as all internet polls do--the percentage of Whites voting to pass Proposition 209 was 63%, suggesting a 3% liberal skew due to the internet.

You cannot BE more opposed to racism than that.  Those who deny these facts are a small extremist minority with no hard evidence to back up their beliefs.


While we have listened to, studied, debated with, and agreed with many Christian Identity writings and leaders, that doesn’t mean we are “connected to” Christian Identity, any more than listening to, studying, debating with, and agreeing with many jews makes us jews.  Even though we agree with many jewish sources and disagree with Christian Identity sources on some KEY issues, that still does not make us jews.  We agree with jewish sources which state that jews are descendants of Esau, and disagree with Christian Identity leaders like Herbert Armstrong and British Israelites who claim that jews are descendants of Judah, but not even that makes us jews.  We agree with jewish sources which deny the holocaust and disagree with Christian Identity sources which claim that six million jews died in a holocaust, and not even that makes us jews.

Furthermore, we reject the major premises of what Wikipedia defines as the “Christian Identity movement”.  We see no movement, there is no consensus, and simply reading and studying Scripture can hardly be characterized as an “ideology”.  They all fail to recognize that the Holy Bible, written by, for, and about the House of Israel, is not merely an “ideology”, “law”, nor “religion”.  They all fail to acknowledge that the Torah is actually Do Rah, where Do = law and Rah = God.  They all fail to realize that calling the first five books of the Holy Bible “law” is a mistranslation or misrepresentation of Do Rah.  None of them seem to even be aware that “Do Rah” is named after the capitol city of the Druids, Do Rah [spelled both as both “Torah” and “Tara”].  If we are “connected to” Christian Identity in any way, it’s only to dispel these long held myths and not to advance any such misinformation.


Our polls have shown that up to 98% of Americans reject the racist and sexist screed euphemistically referred to as feminism.  Four out of five women at putative feminist universities claim they are anti-feminists. By being anti-feminist, we are pro-women in the minds of the vast majority of American women.  If Wikipedia promotes feminism, then they do so contrary to the desire of 98% of American women, four out of five putative feminists themselves, the Will of God, and the Second Amendment right to “free exercise of religion” for the 93% of Americans who CLAIM to be Christians.  By inferring that our opposition to feminism is "sexist", Wikipedia positions itself as an extremist, radical, small minority of misfit communists who belong in some communist country somewhere, and not in this free republic.


On what does Wikipedia base its assertion that any of our polls are biased, and in what way do they believe they're biased?  If they had a credible poll or study or survey which disputed our findings, it would be sufficient for Wikipedia to cite it and support their opinion in the manner they do with almost EVERY other issue, and not just slander us because jews like the ones who maintain and edit Wikipedia are part and parcel of the radical extremist minority of 9% who disagree.  The fact that they did not cite any source is proof enough for the average American that it is they, not us, who support racism, anti-Semitism, feminism, as well as Nazism and wholesale criminal holocaust deniers like the following organizations:


The American jewish Committee.


The American jewish Yearbook.


The Jewish Statistical Bureau of the Synagogue Council of America.


The Daily Express



Wikipedia is not in the position to reject Scripture, refute thousand year old jewish sources like the Talmud, and redefine the term “anti-Semitism”.  The way Scripture defines “Semites” proves that WE are Semites and jews are not.  It’s jewish writings themselves which claim that most jews are descendants of either Ashkenaz [a grandson of Japheth, who was brother of Shem], or the Khazars, a mongrelized race of Mongols and Turks who are neither Semites, Hebrews, nor Israelites. 

The genealogy of the Holy Bible, whether we agree or not, shows that WE Israelites are descendants of Shem, through Abraham.  So our official position cannot be that we are anti-Semites, because if we accept the Scriptural account, we would have to be against our own race, which of course we are not.


With all the great accomplishments of this man, it's hard to imagine that Wikipedia chose the following wanted poster to represent him for any reason other than to be inflammatory.  Also lacking is an explanation for the significance of this poster.

pelley.jpg (15434 bytes)



Wikipedia’s article is inflammatory, it constitutes slander and defamation, and in this age of the Patriot Act, it’s a violation of federal law.  For Wikipedia to use the internet to spread such flagrant and easily disproved LIES about us, our intentions, and our goals, should raise questions about their right to use OUR internet to advance THEIR evil agenda.  If they really are concerned about TRUTH, they must research the site, or send a simple email ASKING what our official position is if they can't figure it out.



horizontal rule



From: Paul Joseph Watson

To: ;

Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 2:51 PM

Subject: [infowarsnews] Credibility Of Wikipedia Takes a Dive After Wired Exposé



Credibility Of Wikipedia Takes a Dive After Wired Exposé
Online encyclopedia outed as bias tool of intelligence agencies, corporations by new Wikipedia Scanner database


Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, August 14, 2007


The credibility of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia has taken another dive after a newly developed software program exposed how the CIA, corporations like Diebold and others routinely edit entries to bury criticism and manipulate the truth.

The credibility of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia has taken another dive after a newly developed software program exposed how the CIA, corporations like Diebold and others routinely edit entries to bury criticism and manipulate the truth.

In our previous investigation, we revealed how a group of trolls were engaged in a concerted campaign to erase the 9/11 truth movement, along with a host of other controversial subjects, out of cyber existence by voting to delete pages about subjects and individuals that obviously warrant a page on Wikipedia.

Examples we cited included such manifestly provable "conspiracy theories" as "List of Republican sex scandals," "People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report" and "Movement to impeach George W. Bush".

Trolls were even allowed to delete the Wiki page for Dylan Avery, who has appeared on Fox News, CNN and in hundreds of newspaper reports. Avery is the producer of the most watched documentary film in Internet history, he clearly merits a biography page on an online encyclopedia, but Wikipedia had no qualms in letting Morton Devonshire and other trolls deep six the entry.

Devonshire and his cohorts have exhibited extreme bias and agenda driven tactics in organizing to purge Wikipedia of material about the 9/11 truth movement, but Wikipedia hasn't done a damn thing to stop it.

Now a CalTech graduate student has developed a software tool that threatens to slam the final nail in the coffin of any credibility Wikipedia had left.

"Wikipedia Scanner -- the brainchild of CalTech computation and neural-systems graduate student Virgil Griffith -- offers users a searchable database that ties millions of anonymous Wikipedia edits to organizations where those edits apparently originated, by cross-referencing the edits with data on who owns the associated block of internet IP addresses," reports Wired News.

"On November 17th, 2005, an anonymous Wikipedia user deleted 15 paragraphs from an article on e-voting machine-vendor Diebold, excising an entire section critical of the company's machines. While anonymous, such changes typically leave behind digital fingerprints offering hints about the contributor, such as the location of the computer used to make the edits."

"In this case, the changes came from an IP address reserved for the corporate offices of Diebold itself. And it is far from an isolated case. A new data-mining service launched Monday traces millions of Wikipedia entries to their corporate sources, and for the first time puts comprehensive data behind longstanding suspicions of manipulation, which until now have surfaced only piecemeal in investigations of specific allegations."

Griffith has compiled a list of different corporations and branches of government that have abused the so-called impartiality of Wikipedia to essentially edit the truth out of existence, replacing it with a PR friendly facade favorable not to the facts or any sense of neutrality, but only to the interests of the parties concerned.

Virgil Griffith, creator of a software program that allows users to track who is editing Wikipedia entries.

The Wikipedia Scanner ( also allows users to type in an IP range and find out which organizations are editing what pages on Wikipedia.

"The result: A database of 5.3 million edits, performed by 2.6 million organizations or individuals ranging from the CIA to Microsoft to Congressional offices, now linked to the edits they or someone at their organization's net address has made. Some of this appears to be transparently self-interested, either adding positive, press release-like material to entries, or deleting whole swaths of critical material," concludes the Wired report.

Unless Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales (pictured top) acts immediately to completely restructure Wikipedia's entire operating system, the online encyclopedia will gradually combust and degenerate into nothing more than a laughing stock.

From many quarters, the giggles are already being heard.

"I'm going to log on to Wikipedia here and I am going to change it," said comedian Stepehen Colbert. "You see, any user can change any entry. And if enough other users agree with them, it becomes true."

Though Wikipedia's raison d'etre is obviously based around allowing users to edit the content, the checks to prevent abuse and organized partisan attack campaigns against certains subjects or ideas are non-existent and the absence of any kind of reasonable moderation is destroying Wiki's reputation.

Wikipedia is fast becoming a complete anathema to reliable research and will see its wavering reputation as a trustworthy source for information quickly evaporate if it continues to allow itself to be abused by intelligence agencies, corporations and dedicated trolls.

horizontal rule         PLEASE FORWARD!!!!  BLOGGERS BLOG IT!!

EI exclusive: a pro-Israel group's plan to rewrite history on Wikipedia
Report, The Electronic Intifada, 21 April 2008


(EI illustration)

A pro-Israel pressure group is orchestrating a secret, long-term campaign to infiltrate the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia to rewrite Palestinian history, pass off crude propaganda as fact, and take over Wikipedia administrative structures to ensure these changes go either undetected or unchallenged.

A series of emails by members and associates of the pro-Israel group CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America), provided to The Electronic Intifada (EI), indicate the group is engaged in what one activist termed a "war" on Wikipedia.

A 13 March action alert signed by Gilead Ini, a "Senior Research Analyst" at CAMERA, calls for "volunteers who can work as 'editors' to ensure" that Israel-related articles on Wikipedia are "free of bias and error, and include necessary facts and context." However, subsequent communications indicate that the group not only wanted to keep the effort secret from the media, the public, and Wikipedia administrators, but that the material they intended to introduce included discredited claims that could smear Palestinians and Muslims and conceal Israel's true history.

With over two million articles in English on every topic imaginable, Wikipedia has become a primary reference source for Internet users around the world and a model for collaboratively produced projects. Openness and good faith are among Wikipedia's core principles. Any person in the world can write or edit articles, but Wikipedia has strict guidelines and procedures for accountability intended to ensure quality control and prevent vandalism, plagiarism or distortion. It is because of these safeguards that articles on key elements of the Palestine-Israel conflict have generally remained well-referenced, useful and objective. The CAMERA plan detailed in the e-mails obtained by EI appears intended to circumvent these controls.

In the past, CAMERA has gained notoriety for its tactic of accusing virtually anyone who does not toe a right-wing pro-Israel line of bias. The group has even accused editors and reporters of the Israeli daily Haaretz of being "extreme" and participating in "radical anti-Israel activity." Jeffrey Dvorkin, the former ombudsman of National Public Radio (NPR), frequently criticized by CAMERA for an alleged pro-Palestinian bias, wrote on the web publication Salon in February 2008 that "as a consequence of its campaign against NPR, CAMERA acted as the enabler for some seriously disturbed people," citing persistent telephone threats he received in the wake of CAMERA campaigns.

Need for stealth and secrecy

Download CAMERA's emails [PDF - 2.7 MB]

Throughout the documents EI obtained, CAMERA operatives stress the need for stealth and secrecy. In his initial action alert, Ini requests that recipients "not forward it to members of the news media." In a 17 March follow-up email sent to volunteers, Ini explains that he wants to make the orchestrated effort appear to be the work of unaffiliated individuals. Thus he advises that "There is no need to advertise the fact that we have these group discussions."

Anticipating possible objections to CAMERA's scheme, Ini conjectures that "Anti-Israel editors will seize on anything to try to discredit people who attempt to challenge their problematic assertions, and will be all too happy to pretend, and announce, that a 'Zionist' cabal (the same one that controls the banks and Hollywood?) is trying to hijack Wikipedia."

But stealth and misrepresentation are presented as the keys to success. Ini suggests that after volunteers sign up as editors for Wikipedia they should "avoid editing Israel-related articles for a short period of time." This strategy is intended to "avoid the appearance of being one-topic editors," thus attracting unwanted attention.

Ini counsels that volunteers "might also want to avoid, for obvious reasons, picking a user name that marks you as pro-Israel, or that lets people know your real name." To further conceal the identity of CAMERA-organized editors, Ini warns, "don't forget to always log in before making [edits]. If you make changes while not logged in, Wikipedia will record your computer's IP address" -- a number that allows identification of the location of a computer connected to the Internet.

A veteran Wikipedia editor, known as "Zeq," who according to the emails is colluding with CAMERA, also provided advice to CAMERA volunteers on how they could disguise their agenda. In a 20 March email often in misspelled English, Zeq writes, "You don't want to be precived [sic] as a 'CAMERA' defender' on wikipedia [sic] that is for sure." One strategy to avoid that is to "edit articles at random, make friends not enemies -- we will need them later on. This is a marathon not a sprint."

Zeq also identifies, in a 25 March email, another Wikipedia editor, "Jayjg," whom he views as an effective and independent pro-Israel advocate. Zeq instructs CAMERA operatives to work with and learn from Jayjg, but not to reveal the existence of their group even to him fearing "it would place him in a bind" since "[h]e is very loyal to the wikipedia [sic] system" and might object to CAMERA's underhanded tactics.

"Uninvolved administrators"

The emphasis on secrecy is apparently not only to aid the undetected editing of articles, but also to facilitate CAMERA's takeover of key administrator positions in Wikipedia.

For Zeq a key goal is to have CAMERA operatives elected as administrators -- senior editors who can override the decisions of others when controversies arise. When disputes arise about hotly contested topics, such as Israel and Palestine, often only an "uninvolved administrator" -- one who is considered neutral because he or she has not edited or written articles on the topic -- can arbitrate.

Hence, Zeq advises in a 21 March email that "One or more of you who want to take this route should stay away from any Israel realted [sic] articles for one month until they [sic] interact in a positive way with 100 wikipedia [sic] editors who would be used later to vote you as an administrator."

Once these CAMERA operatives have successfully infiltrated as "neutral" editors, they could then exercise their privileges to assert their own political agenda.

In addition, Zeq suggests making deliberately provocative edits to Palestine-related articles. He hopes that editors he assumes are Palestinian will delete these changes, and then CAMERA operatives could report them to administrators so they could be sanctioned and have their editing privileges suspended.

Passing propaganda as fact

Gilead Ini's 17 March email provides specific advice on how to pass off pro-Israel propaganda or opinion as fact meeting Wikipedia's strict guidelines:

"So, for example, imagine that you get rid of or modify a problematic sentence in an article alleging that 'Palestinian [sic] become suicide bombers to respond to Israel's oppressive policies.' You should, in parallel leave a comment on that article's discussion page (either after or before making the change). Avoid defending the edit by arguing that 'Israel's policies aren't 'oppression,' they are defensive. And anyway Palestinians obviously become suicide bombers for other reasons for example hate education!' Instead, describe how this sentence violates Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. One of the core principles is that assertions should adhere to a Neutral Point of View, usually abbreviated NPOV. (The opposite of NPOV is POV, or Point of View, which is basically another way of saying subjective statement, or opinion.) So it would be best to note on the discussion page that 'This sentence violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy, since the description of Israel's policies as 'oppressive' is an opinion. In addition, it is often noted by Middle East experts that one of the reasons Palestinians decide to become suicide bombers is hate education and glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society ...'"

In fact, there have been numerous studies debunking claims about Palestinian "hate education," or "glorification of martyrdom" causing suicide bombings (such as Dying to Win by University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape) though this claim remains a favorite canard of pro-Israel activists seeking to distract attention from the effects of Israel's occupation and other well-documented and systematic human rights abuses in fueling violence.

Zeq specifically names articles targeted for this kind of treatment including those on the 1948 Palestinian Exodus, Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, Hamas, Hizballah, Arab citizens of Israel, anti-Zionism, al-Nakba, the Palestinian people, and the Palestinian right of return.

Interestingly the CAMERA editors also target the article on the early Islamic period concept of Dhimmi, a protected status for non-Muslims which historically allowed Jews to thrive in Muslim-ruled lands while other Jews were being persecuted in Christian Europe. Pro-Israel activists have often tried to portray the concept of Dhimmi as akin to the Nuremberg laws in order to denigrate Muslim culture and justify ahistorical Zionist claims that Jews could never live safely in majority Muslim countries.

Also among the emails is a discussion about how to alter the article on the massacre of Palestinian civilians in the village of Deir Yassin by Zionist militiamen on 9 April 1948. Unable to debunk the facts of the massacre outright, the CAMERA activists hunt for quotes from "reputable historians" who can cast doubt on it. Their strategy is not dissimilar from those who attempt to present evolution, or global climate change as "controversial" regardless of the weight of the scientific evidence, simply because the facts do not accord with their belief system.

Zeq has already made extensive edits to the Wikipedia article on Rachel Corrie, the American peace activist murdered by an Israeli soldier in the occupied Gaza Strip on 16 March 2003. As a result of these and other edits Zeq has himself been a controversial figure among Wikipedia editors, suggesting his own stealth tactics may not be working.

"We will go to war"

Zeq, however, counsels CAMERA operatives to be patient and lie low until they build up their strength. "We will go to war after we have build our army, equiped it trained [sic]," he wrote on 9 April. "So please if you want to win this war help us build ou[r] army. let's not just rush in and achieve nothing, or abit more than nothing [sic]."